During recent months heated exchanges that have been highlighted in the media have led some to describe a “coarsening” of our national discourse. The conflicts seem to point to polarization that could make collaboration unachievable.

In Becoming a Conflict Competent Leader, Tim Flanagan and Craig Runde introduced the concept of “intensity levels” of conflict.  On the lower end differences and misunderstandings are part of our normal experience and can be overcome by taking time to listen carefully to one another.  When these are not managed they can grow into disagreements which require more effort to resolve.

When conflict is avoided or concerns of others are ignored, conflicts can rise to the level of discord.  At this level conflict spills over from the original issue and begins to affect other interactions.  If this continues, it can turn into polarization which is characterized by severe negative emotions and behaviors and little hope of reconciliation.  At that point people are no longer willing to listen to understand one another.  Relationships are broken.

Has the country reached the polarization level?  The answer is not an easy one.  A large part of the population is still quite pragmatic and yearns for solutions to their real life problems more than ideological victories.  At the same time growing numbers of people, stressed by economic and social factors, are taking more strident stands.  The problem is not that they have strong feelings about issues, but rather that they are often unwilling to listen to those who have different views about these issues.  Differences are seen in terms of a zero sum game – one side wins and one side loses.  So everyone gets busy trying to win.  This may include trying to disparage the other side’s position.  It rarely includes trying to understand it.

The media often focuses on the more sensationalized aspects of the conflicts which tends to make people dig in even harder.  Politicians often play into the conflicts and try to use partisan approaches to score points rather than find common ground.

At the same time there are many of all political persuasions who still seek collaborative solutions.  They recognize that there is more to gain from working together to find creative solutions to the issues raised by our differences.

Recognize common interests.  Rigorously debate issues of difference.  Develop creative solutions.  These approaches have served the country well for over 200 years.  They can serve us just as well today.

In situations where a conflict has been going on for a long time, it is often because one or both parties have been avoiding a true resolution of the problem.  Whether it is because they don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings, risk damaging the relationship, or are just plain fed up in dealing with an annoying issue, people often become complicit in an unacceptable situation because it seems easier than addressing it directly.  The truth of the matter, though, is that unresolved issues rarely go away by themselves.  Usually, they fester and get worse over time so the better approach is to deal with them openly, honestly, and as soon as possible to ensure the relationship doesn’t continue to deteriorate.

One of the first steps in addressing a longstanding conflict is to fully evaluate the situation—the background leading up to the conflict, previous conversations, your role in the conflict getting to the place it is today, etc.  Over time, you may have replayed the situation in your mind a thousand times, and it’s likely you’ve made the other person the villain and underplayed any part you may have had in the conflict.  It’s important to realize that in any conflict situation, both parties contribute to the misunderstanding although the contributions may not be of equal weight.  Acknowledging your own contribution to the problem is critical because it communicates to the other person it’s not just about him/her; it’s about you as well.  This, in turn, enables the other party to non-defensively do the same.  Then the problem becomes something more like a pattern you’ve both allowed to happen over time and one which you can now commit to change.

The second step is to plan how you’re going to get this relationship back on track.  Review in your mind what has transpired up to this point.  What did you do that seemed to work?  What kept you from communicating more honestly?  What thoughts and emotions did you experience?  What could you do differently this time?  What could you say to make it more “safe” for the other person?

In addition to these kinds of “content” issues, it’s also wise to plan from a logistical standpoint.  Do you want to communicate in person, over the phone, or by email?  When and where do you want to have this conversation?  Would it be best to invite the other person to lunch, or just have a private conversation in an office?  Should you describe what you’re thinking and ask the other person if he/she is willing to discuss it with you?  Would a third party be helpful?  Again, it’s best to plan out some of these details rather than just responding off the cuff.

Along these same lines, it’s good to practice the actual words you’re going to say and prepare for a myriad of different responses from the other person.  For instance, think about what emotions might arise from the situation.  What if the other person gets angry or cries?  What if he/she refuses to talk?  What are your options then?  Role playing some of these different scenarios helps lay the groundwork for a better conversation.

Tips

• Keep in mind the costs of not addressing the conflict.  Strong relationships often evolve from tackling the tough issues and resolving them, not by avoiding them.
• Be prepared to apologize for what you’ve done in the past that made the relationship difficult.  Apologies can be a great first step in moving the relationship forward.
• Be patient.  Understand that the conflict has been going on for some time, and the other party may not immediately respond in the manner you’re expecting.  Allow for some initial defensiveness or confusion, but remain open for further dialogue.